Running head: MINDFULLY AWARE AND ENGAGED AT WORK 1 · Running head: MINDFULLY AWARE AND ENGAGED AT WORK 5 (Reb et al., 2014), emotion regulation (Hülsheger et al., 2013), job performance

Running head: MINDFULLY AWARE AND ENGAGED AT WORK 1

Being mindfully aware and engaged at work? The role of affect regulative processes for the

relationship between daily levels of mindfulness and work engagement.

EMPIRICAL RESEARCH

Franziska Depenbrock

Maastricht University

Master thesis

1st Supervisor: Dr. Ute R. Hülsheger (Maastricht University)

2nd

Supervisor: Dr. J. Reb (Singapore Management University)

ID: i6015145

Total word count: 8,005


Table of contents

Abstract................................................................................................................................. 3

Mindfully Aware and Engaged at Work ............................................................................. 4

Mindfulness........................................................................................................................... 6

The Role of Mindfulness for Work engagement.................................................................. 7

Mindfulness, resources and work engagement ..................................................................... 8

Role of affect regulative processes for the relationship between mindfulness and work

engagement ....................................................................................................................... 10

Positive affect as a mediator of the link between mindfulness and work engagement .... 10

Mindfulness as a moderator of the link between negative affective events, negative

affect and work engagement ........................................................................................ 12

Method ................................................................................................................................ 15

Sample and procedure ....................................................................................................... 15

Measures ........................................................................................................................... 16

Data analysis ..................................................................................................................... 17

Results ................................................................................................................................. 19

Discussion............................................................................................................................ 21

Limitations and directions for future research .................................................................... 25

Practical implications ........................................................................................................ 27

References ........................................................................................................................... 29


Abstract

The present study investigated the relationship between mindfulness, defined as a state of

receptive attentiveness to and awareness of the current moment, and employees’ engagement

at work. Furthermore, the role of affect regulative processes for this relationship was

explored: First, positive affect was examined as a mediator between mindfulness and work

engagement. Second, mindfulness was examined as a buffer against the detrimental effects of

negative affect and negative affective events on work engagement. Seventy-six employees

reconstructed their activities and experiences at work episodically on a workday (57% female,

M age = 40 years). Results partially confirmed the hypotheses. Multilevel analysis revealed

that mindfulness was positively related to work engagement, and, as predicted, this

relationship was partially mediated by positive affect. In addition, mindfulness was found to

moderate the negative affect-engagement relationship. However, contrary to expectation,

negative affect was negatively related to work engagement in highly mindful individuals,

while for individuals low in mindfulness negative affect was positively related to work

engagement. Practical implications for using mindfulness to foster work engagement and

directions for future research are discussed in conclusion.

Keywords: affect; affective events; affective events theory; affective shift model;

broaden-and-build theory; day reconstruction method; job demands-resources model;

mindfulness; work engagement.


Mindfully Aware and Engaged at Work

Since its debut in Western medicine in 1979, mindfulness – a state of being aware of and

attending to what is taking place in the present (Brown, Ryan, & Creswell, 2007) – has

received a great deal of attention in the clinical and empirical domain (Bodhi, 2011; Glomb,

Duffy, Bono, & Yang, 2011). Medical practitioners and clinical psychologists have turned to

complementing conventional treatments for a variety of physical and psychological disorders

with mindfulness-based interventions (cf. Bishop et al., 2004) such as mindfulness-based

stress reduction (Kabat-Zinn, 1982) and mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (Segal,

Williams, & Teasdale, 2002). In the last three decades, these therapeutic mindfulness-based

interventions have been proven clinically effective in alleviating patients’ suffering (see

Grossman, Niemann, Schmidt, & Walach, 2004 for meta-analysis). Moreover, a growing

body of academic research suggests that they not only benefit clinical populations, but also

healthy individuals by enhancing psychological functioning and well-being (see Chiesa &

Serretti, 2009 for a meta-analysis). Furthermore, these effects have been established when

considering mindfulness as a natural human capacity that can be experienced by individuals

who did not participate in mindfulness-based interventions (Brown & Ryan, 2003). To this

end, several self-report measures of mindfulness have been developed in the last years (e.g.,

Baer et al., 2008; Baer, Smith, & Allen, 2004; Baer, Smith, Hopkins, Krietemeyer, & Toney,

2006; Brown & Ryan, 2003; Hayes & Feldman, 2004; Lau et al., 2006; Walach, Buchheld,

Buttenmüller, Kleinknecht, & Schmidt, 2006).

Despite the evidence for its beneficial effects on important life domains such as health

and well-being (Brown et al., 2007), mindfulness has only recently been introduced to the

field of industrial and organizational (IO) psychology. While studies initially focused on

demonstrating the ability of mindfulness to reduce stress and burnout in the workplace, there

is now a growing interest in mindfulness at the workplace beyond its impact on mental health

(Giluk, 2010). Empirical studies are still scarce. However, initial evidence is promising

(Glomb et al., 2011). Mindfulness has been found to have positive effects for a variety of

work-related concepts, namely: psychological detachment (Hülsheger et al., 2014), recovery

(Marzuq & Drach-Zahavy, 2012), sleep quality (Hülsheger et al., 2014; Klatt, Buckworth, &

Malarkey, 2009; Wolever et al., 2012), work-family balance (Allen & Kiburz, 2012),

emotional exhaustion (Narayanan, Chaturvedi, Reb, & Srinivas, 2011, as cited in Reb,

Narayanan, & Chaturvedi, 2014; Hülsheger, Alberts, Feinholdt, & Lang, 2013), leadership


(Reb et al., 2014), emotion regulation (Hülsheger et al., 2013), job performance (Dane &

Brummel, 2013), and job satisfaction (Hülsheger et al., 2013).

The present study aims to extend these findings on the benefits of mindfulness at work

by exploring its effects on a concept that has evolved as a core phenomenon of IO

psychology, namely work engagement (Bakker, Schaufeli, Leiter, & Taris, 2008). When

employees are engaged in their work, they are highly energetic, enthusiastic and fully

immersed in their job (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004; Schaufeli, Salanova, González-Romá, &

Bakker, 2002). Being in such a state of mind is an important indicator of employee well-being

(Bakker & Demerouti, 2008) and enhances the occurrence of behaviors known to promote

efficient functioning of the organization (e.g., Rich, Lepine, & Crawford, 2010; Sonnentag,

2003). To be able to fully exploit the potential of a workforce, it is necessary to understand

the factors that drive employees’ engagement at work. With reference to the job demands-

resources (JD-R) model of work engagement (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008; Demerouti,

Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001), the current study proposes mindfulness to be such a

driving factor. Different perspectives on how mindfulness impacts work engagement are

taken: Both potential direct and indirect effects are investigated. The latter are assumed to be

transmitted through mindfulness’ association with greater affect regulatory tendencies (e.g.,

Brown & Ryan, 2003). Effective affect regulation comprises increased positive affect, as well

as enhanced capability to recover from negative affect and negative affective events1

.

Investigating these potential indirect effects of mindfulness is important in order to obtain a

more complete understanding of its role for work engagement. That is, to specify mediators of

the mindfulness-engagement link, as well as the conditions under which mindfulness is

expected to foster employees’ engagement at work.

The present study contributes to both the mindfulness and engagement literature: Both

work engagement and mindfulness are conceptualized as experiences that fluctuate within the

same individual over the course of time. Proposed relationships are examined at a daily level.

By doing so, the present study applies a dynamic view of work engagement. In addition, it

provides a closer, more fine-grained examination of one of the central psychological

mechanisms underlying the beneficial effects of mindfulness at the workplace, namely affect

regulation. In this way, the present study extends first findings on the role of awareness and

1 In the present paper the term affect, with its two dominant dimensions positive and negative affect (Watson,

Clark, & Tellegen, 1988), is used as an umbrella term referring to short-lived affective processes, discrete

emotions, and moods that tend to exist for longer time periods (Bindl & Parker, 2010; Watson et al., 1988).


attention in the engagement context (Leroy, Anseel, Dimitrova, & Sels, 2013), and

contributes to a better understanding of proximal antecedents of daily work engagement.

Furthermore, it shows possibilities to promote employee engagement at work, which may

ultimately benefit employee well-being and stimulate performance improvement.

Mindfulness

Having its roots in Buddhist philosophy, mindfulness has been defined as “receptive

attention to and awareness of present events and experiences” (Brown, Ryan, & Creswell,

2007, p. 212; cf. also Brown & Ryan, 2003). However, despite its roots, the concept of

mindfulness is nonreligious and nonesoteric (Grossman, 2010). It can be conceptualized as an

intrinsic capacity of consciousness that can be approached at the between-person (trait) and at

the within-person (state) level (Hülsheger et al., 2013). In addition, mindfulness is frequently

associated with mindfulness-based interventions that are aimed at cultivating the state of

mindfulness through repeated practice (Shapiro, Carlson, Astin, & Freedman, 2006).

Individuals who engage in regular practice and those who have a disposition to be more

mindful, are aware of and attend to the here and now more frequently, for longer periods of

time, and with greater intensity. However, even these individuals experience moments of

mindlessness (Brown & Ryan, 2003).

The mindful state of consciousness has several qualities (Brown et al., 2007): First,

being in a mindful state involves bare attention to everything that enters awareness. Ones

inner and outer worlds are noticed only, that is, nothing is cognitively processed or otherwise

reacted on. Mindfulness is pre-conceptual, thereby allowing individuals to stay in direct

contact with reality. Second, being in a mindful state is characterized by its present-

orientedness. Mindful individuals neither dwell on past events nor do they worry about the

future. They are simply aware of and attend to what is happening in the present moment.

Finally, the mindful state of consciousness is qualified by its flexibility, as individuals can be

aware of everything taking place in the here and now or attend to situational details.

Possessing these qualities (i.e., pre-conceptuality, present-orientedness and flexibility)

has been argued to induce a process referred to as reperceiving or de-coupling of the self from

inner experiences and external events (Brown et al., 2007; Glomb et al., 2011; Shapiro et al.,

2006). By actively turning attention to the here and now with a non-reactive attitude, mindful

individuals objectively observe their thoughts and feelings, without being fully engrossed in

them (Bishop et al., 2004). As a consequence, they recognize that their experiences are no

valid representations of reality, but rather passing subjective states that are insubstantial in


nature (Bishop et al., 2004; Brown et al., 2007; Chambers, Gullone, & Allen, 2009; Shapiro et

al., 2006). In addition, being in a mindful state is assumed to disrupt the automaticity of

cognitive processes (Glomb et al., 2011). By simply noticing the current moment, individuals

have a wider repertoire of reactions (Brown et al., 2007; Chambers et al., 2009; Evans &

Segerstrom, 2011). As a consequence, individuals refrain from mal-adaptive automatic

thought and behavior patterns, and respond more effectively (Bishop et al., 2004; Brown et

al., 2007; Glomb et al., 2011; Shapiro et al., 2006). That is, mindfulness promotes self-

regulation.

The Role of Mindfulness for Work engagement

Defined as “a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by

vigor, dedication, and absorption” (Schaufeli et al., 2002, p. 74), work engagement has

evolved as a core phenomenon of IO psychology (Bakker et al., 2008). Its first dimension,

vigor, is characterized by high effort investment, mental resilience and perseverance at work,

even when confronted with obstacles. Dedication refers to high levels of job involvement and

the experience of meaningfulness, enthusiasm, inspiration, pride, and challenge toward work.

Finally, its third dimension, absorption, means being fully immersed in one’s work, such that

time goes by fast and one has difficulties to psychologically detach from work during non-

work time. Similar to the concept of mindfulness, work engagement can be conceptualized

both as a trait and as a state. Thus, an employee who is generally engaged in his or her work

can still experience fluctuations in work engagement and may feel less vigorous, dedicate,

and absorbed on some working days than others (Sonnentag, Dorman, & Demerouti, 2010).

Work engagement is considered to be conceptually the opposite of burnout, a work-

related mental health complaint characterized by emotional exhaustion, depersonalization and

diminished professional efficacy (Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001; Schaufeli et al., 2002).

Studies using confirmatory factor analysis have found the two constructs to be negatively

related, sharing between ten percent and 38 percent of their variances (Schaufeli & Bakker,

2004; Schaufeli et al., 2002). However, work engagement and burnout are not simply

opposite polar ends of a continuum that can be assessed by a single instrument. More

specifically, it appears that vigor and dedication, which are considered to constitute the core

dimensions of work engagement, are the opposites of the core burnout dimensions exhaustion

and cynicism, respectively: Exhaustion and vigor spanning a bipolar dimension labeled

energy; cynicism and dedication spanning a bipolar dimension labeled identification

(González-Romá, Schaufeli, Bakker, & Lloret, 2006). However, this does not apply for


reduced efficacy and absorption. Those two dimensions are conceptually distinct and thus not

opposite poles of an underlying continuum.

In accordance with its conceptualization, research has found work engagement to be

beneficial for both individuals and organizations, contrary to burnout, which is associated

with decreased job satisfaction, reduced work commitment, and various forms of job

withdrawal (Maslach et al., 2001). Among others, work engagement has been found to be

predictive for employees’ organizational commitment (Bakker & Bal, 2010; Hakanen,

Bakker, & Schaufeli, 2006), turnover intentions (Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002; Schaufeli

& Bakker, 2004) and job performance indicators, such as financial returns (Xanthopoulou,

Bakker, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2009), customer satisfaction (Harter et al., 2002; Marisa

Salanova, Agut, & Peiró, 2005), productivity (Harter et al., 2002), and organizational

citizenship behavior (Rich et al., 2010). It has been argued that these beneficial effects result

from the fact that engaged employees experience better health and often positive emotions,

and are able to create their own resources (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008).

Thus, in today’s fast paced economy engaged employees are indispensable for

organizational success. Consequently, the construct of work engagement has gained special

attention from both academics and practitioners (Macey & Schneider, 2008). To be able to

fully exploit the potential of a workforce, it is necessary to understand the factors that drive

and hinder employee engagement. The present study focuses on exploring the role of

mindfulness in driving employee engagement.

Mindfulness, Resources and Work engagement

When being exposed to demands and challenges at work, employees need to expend

effort in order to meet these. Effort investment, however, involves the depletion of

employees’ physical, cognitive and emotional resources, which ultimately may harm health

and well-being (Hobfoll, 1989; Meijman & Mulder, 1998). According to the JD-R model of

work engagement (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008; Demerouti et al., 2001), the work

environment, in terms of resources and demands, is particularly relevant to determine how

engaged employees are in their work. Resources can be job characteristics or individual

characteristics, also referred to as job and personal resources, respectively (Bakker &

Demerouti, 2008). Research of work engagement has found both to be important predictors of

employees engagement at work, owing to their motivating potential (e.g., Bakker, Hakanen,

Demerouti, & Xanthopoulou, 2007; Hakanen et al., 2006; Weigl et al., 2010; Xanthopoulou,

Bakker, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2007; Xanthopoulou et al., 2009). In other words,


employees are more energetic, enthusiastic and immersed in their job on days when more

resources are available. Conversely, a lack of resources as a result of effort expenditure at

work is associated with less engagement at work.

The mindful state of consciousness is proposed to be positively related to work

engagement, as it is considered to help employees to obtain, retain and protect the resources

needed to be energetic, enthusiastic and immersed in their job: First, through the process of

reperceiving and the shift in perspective it fosters, mindfulness promotes autonomous

regulation of behavior (i.e., self-regulation; Ryan & Deci, 2008) (Brown & Ryan, 2003;

Glomb et al., 2011; Shapiro et al., 2006). In this way, mindfulness preserves resources.

Whereas engaging in self-controlling regulation of behavior to confront the demands at work

is depleting resources, autonomous regulation does not. Instead, it maintains vitality and

energy (Ryan & Deci, 2008). Second, by disrupting the automaticity of thought and behavior

patterns, mindfully attending to the here and now allows individuals to act in accord with their

actual values, needs and interests (Brown & Ryan, 2003; Shapiro et al., 2006). Satisfying

one’s needs and acting in alignment with one’s values and interests in turn engenders

resources in the form of vitality and energy (Ryan & Deci, 2008).

Research provides evidence for the resource-conserving and obtaining effects of

mindfulness. Individuals who have the disposition to be more mindful have been found to

experience greater vitality (Allen & Kiburz, 2012; Brown & Ryan, 2003). Similarly,

mindfulness-based interventions have been shown to increase daily energy levels (Smith et

al., 2008) and to counteract the deleterious effects of self-controlling regulation of behavior

on resources (Friese, Messner, & Schaffner, 2012). Moreover, mindfully coping with

emotions has been found to drain fewer resources compared to self-controlled attempts of

coping (Alberts, Schneider, & Martijn, 2012).

To the author’s knowledge, to date, only one empirical study has investigated whether

mindfulness is linked to work engagement (Leroy et al., 2013). Using a growth-modeling

approach, Leroy and colleagues (2013) were able to show that participation in an eight-week

in-company mindfulness training was related to substantial increases in employees’

engagement at work. Moreover, they found authentic functioning to mediate the relationship

between mindfulness and work engagement. Thus, there is theoretical and initial empirical

support that mindfulness may be positively related to work engagement. In contrast to Leroy

and colleagues’ (2013) intervention study, the present study focuses on natural variations in

mindfulness. Moreover, it takes a dynamic approach on work engagement by assessing the

relationship between mindfulness and daily levels of work engagement, rather than


individuals’ levels of work engagement over longer periods of time. As to whether an

employee is engaged at work on a specific day is particularly influenced by feelings, events

and conditions that arise in temporal proximity to the experience (Sonnentag, Dorman, et al.,

2010). Accordingly, the present study focuses on daily levels of mindfulness rather than on

mindfulness as a trait. It is expected that mindful employees will be more engaged at work.

Hypothesis 1: Day levels of mindfulness will be positively related to day levels of

work engagement.

Role of Affect Regulative Processes for the Relationship between Mindfulness and Work

engagement

In addition to its direct effects on an individual’s work engagement, mindfulness is

likely to affect the extent to which workers are energetic, enthusiastic and immersed in their

jobs indirectly, through more proximal processes. In the last years, there have been repeated

calls (and theoretical attempts to answer these calls) for an understanding of the processes and

potential mechanisms behind the beneficial effects of mindfulness (Bishop et al., 2004;

Glomb et al., 2011; Shapiro et al., 2006). Authentic functioning is probably only one of them.

The present research aims to empirically test a mechanism which has consistently been

emphasized as being one of the core processes in the mindfulness literature, namely affect

regulation (Bishop et al., 2004; Brown et al., 2007; Glomb et al., 2011; Shapiro et al., 2006).

As work engagement, on the other hand, is particularly dependent on affect (Bledow, Schmitt,

Frese, & Kühnel, 2011; Schaufeli et al., 2002), it is reasonable to examine the role of affect

regulative processes for the relationship between mindfulness and work engagement.

Specifically, the present study will investigate the role of positive affect as a mediator of the

mindfulness-engagement relationship. Furthermore, mindfulness will be explored as a

moderator of the relationship of negative affect and negative affective events with work

engagement.

Positive affect as a mediator of the link between mindfulness and work

engagement.

Consistent with the notion that mindfully attending to the here and now promotes

decoupling and decreased automaticity of cognitive processes (Bishop et al., 2004; Brown et

al., 2007; Glomb et al., 2011), research suggests that mindfulness is associated with greater

adaptive affect regulatory tendencies: Self-report measures of mindfulness have been related


with strengthened awareness and acceptance of emotions, and emotion regulation (Baer et al.,

2004, 2006; Feldman, Hayes, Kumar, Greeson, & Laurenceau, 2007), and enhanced

capability to tolerate experienced affect, irrespective of its affective tone or intensity (Eifert &

Heffner, 2003; Levitt, Brown, Orsillo, & Barlow, 2004). Furthermore, they have been

negatively related with scales measuring difficulties in emotion regulation (Roemer et al.,

2009) and in identifying and describing feelings (Baer et al., 2004; Brown & Ryan, 2003).

Being able to regulate one’s affective experiences effectively comprises the generation

and maintenance of positive affect (Glomb et al., 2011). Accordingly, individuals with a

disposition to be more mindful have been found to report higher levels of trait positive affect

(Giluk, 2009). Similarly, mindfulness meditation practices have been found useful in

increasing the experience of positive affect in a variety of non-clinical samples (Fredrickson,

Cohn, Coffey, Pek, & Finkel, 2008; Giluk, 2010; Jain et al., 2007; Nyklíček & Kuijpers,

2008; Schroevers & Brandsma, 2010; Shapiro, Brown, & Biegel, 2007). In addition,

Davidson and colleagues (2003) have found areas of the brain that are associated with

positive emotions to be more activated after four months of mindfulness-based training. Thus,

through mindfully attending to the present moment individuals are more emotionally aware

and better able in regulating their emotions, thereby enhancing the experience of positive

affect (Glomb et al., 2011).

Positive affect plays an important role for the emergence of high work engagement.

According to Fredrickson's (1998, 2001) broaden-and-build theory, positive affect

momentarily broadens people’s thought-action repertoires, thereby widening the range of

ideas and actions that come to mind and, in turn, building individuals’ personal resources. The

JD-R model of work engagement (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008; Demerouti et al., 2001) posits

that personal resources are important predictors of work engagement. Accordingly, work

engagement has been found to be particularly dependent on positive affect: The more positive

affect employees experience, the more engaged they are (e.g., Fredrickson, Tugade, Waugh,

& Larkin, 2003; Langelaan, Bakker, van Doornen, & Schaufeli, 2006). Furthermore, studies

have confirmed that, in line with broaden-and-build theory and the JD-R model, employees

experiencing positive affect are more likely to be engaged at work, precisely because they

experience enhanced personal resources (e.g., Ouweneel, Le Blanc, Schaufeli, & van Wijhe,

2012; Ouweneel, Blanc, & Schaufeli, 2012).

Given the link between mindfulness and positive affect, and the role of positive affect

for work engagement, it is reasonable to assume that mindfulness may positively influence

work engagement through its affect-enhancing effects. Accordingly, in a work setting,


Fredrickson and colleagues (2008) found a mindfulness-related mediation practice to induce

increments in daily experiences of positive emotions, which, in turn, built a wide range of

personal resources. However, a subsequent impact of the increments in positive emotions and

personal resources on participants’ engagement at work was not assessed.

The present study aims to extend these findings by investigating the role of positive

affect for the link between mindfulness and work engagement. With reference to the

interrelations between mindfulness, positive affect and work engagement, the JD-R model of

work engagement (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008; Demerouti et al., 2001), and B&B theory

(Fredrickson, 1998, 2001), positive affect is proposed to mediate the link between

mindfulness and work engagement. More specifically, it will be expected that those

employees high in daily mindfulness will report higher daily work engagement levels as

compared to less mindful employees, as they experience more positive affect.

Hypothesis 2: Positive affect will mediate the relationship between daily levels of

mindfulness and work engagement.

Mindfulness as a moderator of the link between negative affective events,

negative affect and work engagement.

In contrast to positive affect, negative affect is associated with a narrowed mindset,

that is, tightened thought-action repertoires (Fredrickson, 2004). As such, negative affect is

incompatible with being energetic, enthusiastic and immersed in one’s job. Nevertheless,

negative affect serves an important role for employees’ engagement, as it can lead to increases

in work engagement under certain conditions (Bledow et al., 2011). Recently, Bledow and

colleagues (2011) developed an affective shift model of work engagement which postulates

that work engagement arises from the dynamic interaction of positive and negative affect.

According to their model, the experience of negative affect results in work engagement if

followed by the experience of positive affect. That is, following a down-regulation of

negative affect and an up-regulation of positive affect, referred to as an affective shift. The

experience of negative affect itself is considered not to result in an increase in work

engagement and even has detrimental consequences for employees’ engagement at work.

Only with a subsequent experience of positive affect its motivating potential can unfold.

Using a daily diary design, Bledow and colleagues (2011) demonstrated that negative

affect experienced in the morning of a working day was associated with high work

engagement if participants experienced high positive affect later that day. Similar results were


obtained for the experience of negative affective events. In line with affective events theory

(Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996), which posits that that the experience of affective events

generates affective states, Bledow and colleagues (2011) found negative affective events to be

conducive for employee engagement if followed by the experience of positive affect.

However, as with negative affect, the experience of negative affective events was negatively

related to work engagement if no subsequent shift in affect had taken place. They concluded

that “it is not only the level of positive and negative affect that matters [for work engagement]

(...) but also the temporal sequence and regulation of positive and negative affect” (p.1254).

From these findings it follows, that individuals that are able to quickly shift to positive

affect after the experience of negative affect and negative affective events, should be more

engaged at work compared to individuals having difficulties to do so (Bledow et al., 2011).

Without a subsequent shift to positive affect, that is, successful down-regulation of

experienced negative affect, in particular, negative affect has detrimental consequences for

employees’ engagement at work. As this is the case, mindfulness is suggested to serve as a

buffer against the adverse effects of negative affect and negative affective work events for

work engagement, thereby promoting employees’ engagement at work indirectly.

Through mindfully attending to and being aware of the present moment, individuals

are better able to regulate their affective experiences effectively. This does not only result in

enhanced positive affect, as described above, but also in “healthy engagement” with negative

affective experiences (Chambers et al., 2009, p. 566). Mindful individuals simply observe and

label negative events and experiences, instead of being fully immersed in them. Negative

experiences are neither elaborated on nor tried to be altered. As a consequence, the

experience, expression, and time needed to recover from these is reduced (Bishop et al., 2004;

Brown & Ryan, 2003; Chambers et al., 2009; Glomb et al., 2011; Kabat-Zinn, 1990).

Accordingly, measures of mindfulness have been found to have a strong, negative relationship

with trait negative affect (Giluk, 2009), and to be related with an enhanced capability to

recover from unpleasant mood states (Baer et al., 2004; Brown & Ryan, 2003). Furthermore,

negative affect has been reported to increase after both short guided mindfulness meditation

practice (Broderick, 2005) and four to 10-week mindfulness-based therapy in a variety of

non-clinical samples (Giluk, 2010; Ortner et al., 2007; Schroevers & Brandsma, 2010; Sears

& Kraus, 2009; Shapiro et al., 2007; Tipsord, 2009; Vieten & Astin, 2008). FMRI research

has corroborated these findings by demonstrating that areas of the brain that are associated

with faster recovery from negative affective events are more activated after four months of

mindfulness-based training (Davidson et al., 2003). In addition, observing and labeling


stimuli of negative affective valence has been found to reduce the reactivity to these stimuli

by reducing limbic system activation (Hariri, Bookheimer, & Mazziotta, 2000) and enhancing

prefrontal cortical inhibition (Creswell, Way, Eisenberger, & Lieberman, 2007).

Given these findings, mindful individuals are proposed to be better able to unfold the

motivating potential inherent in negative affect and negative affective events, compared to

less mindful individuals. That is, they should be better able to shift to positive affect after

negative affect and negative affective events have been experienced. Consequently, the

relationship between negative affect and work engagement, and negative affective work

events and work engagement is expected to be less negative for these individuals. Again,

daily levels of mindfulness are considered, as individuals that have the disposition or that

regularly practice to be more mindful can experience days of mindlessness, as well (Brown &

Ryan, 2003). Figure 1 summarizes all hypothesized relationships.

Hypothesis 3a: Daily levels of mindfulness will moderate the relationship between

negative affect and daily levels of work engagement, such that the relationship will be

more negative for individuals low in daily mindfulness.

Hypothesis 3b: Daily levels of mindfulness will moderate the relationship between

negative affective work events and daily levels of work engagement, such that the

relationship will be more negative for individuals low in daily mindfulness.


Method

The present study was part of a larger joint project on the benefits of mindfulness at

work conducted by the Department of Work- and Organizational Psychology at Maastricht

University and the Organizational Behavior and Human Resources faculty at Singapore

Management University.

Sample and Procedure

German full- and part time employees of both genders were invited to participate in

the study. They were recruited by means of online advertising (e.g., calls for participation

posted in social networks and online forums) and the snowballing technique (i.e., employed

adults known by the author were asked to participate and to recommend other individuals for

participation by email). A total of 276 emails were distributed to potentially interested

persons, containing information on the study’s purpose and set-up, and survey links. The

study was introduced as dealing with well-being at the workplace. The topics mindfulness,

affect, and work engagement were not mentioned. As incentive, participants were offered to

take part in a lottery to win one of ten shopping coupons from an American international

electronic commerce company in the amount of ten Euros.

A total of 76 employees completed the first day of the survey, representing a response

rate of 28%. Despite reminders, only 37 of these filled in the second day of the survey (i.e.,

49% of the original sample). The comparatively low response rate for both parts of the survey

may be due to several reasons: First, participants were recruited via email only. Each

participant received a standardized message instead of being approached personally.

Moreover, some received this message by intermediaries only. As a consequence, recipients’

commitment to participate might have been reduced. In addition, uncertainties regarding the

study (if present) could not be eliminated immediately but had to be formulated via email

first, which participants might have considered too cumbersome. Second, both parts of the

study were quite time-consuming. Completion times were introduced to range between at

least 15 (day 2) to 30 (day 1) minutes. This might also have discouraged individuals to

participate. In addition, on average, individuals who participated took longer than estimated to

fill in the first day of the survey (M = 41 minutes, range: 13-86, SD = 16.9). This might have

caused them to refuse completing the second part of the survey. Moreover, the study required

participants to complete the surveys directly after work (i.e., on the same day), which might

have been untenable for individuals who worked late. Finally, parts of the recruitment took


place during the summer holiday season. Accordingly, many of potentially interested

individuals were unavailable and unable to participate.

The mean age of the respondents was 40 years (range: 21-63 years, SD = 14.6). Fifty-

seven percent of them were female, 43 percent were male. Sixty-four percent had a university

degree. On average, they worked 36 hours per week (range: 4.5-60 hours, SD = 13.3). The

sample comprised broad range of professions, including 14 percent teachers. Twenty-eight

percent of the respondents had a leading position.

Measures

Data collection consisted of a modified online version of the DRM (Kahneman,

Krueger, Schkade, Schwarz, & Stone, 2004), which participants were instructed to complete

after work on two consecutive work days. In this way, features of experience sampling, time-

budget measurement and the diary method were combined, thereby allowing to jointly asses

events and experiences during work on a daily basis, in temporal proximity to the work

process, but without disturbing it. As a consequence, retrospective reporting errors and biases

are reduced and relationships among variables that are assumed to fluctuate within the same

individual over short periods of time can be assessed (Kahneman et al., 2004; Ohly,

Sonnentag, Niessen, & Zapf, 2010).

On the first day, the DRM procedure began with a general questionnaire assessing,

among others, demographic variables (age, gender, educational level, working hours per

week, profession). Next, as well as on the second day, participants were asked to reconstruct

their past working day in a diary. They were instructed to

think of your day as a continuous series of scenes or episodes in a film. Give each

episode a brief name that will help you remember it (...). Write down the approximate

times at which each episode began and ended. The episodes people identify usually

last between 15 minutes and 2 hours. Indications of the end of an episode might be

going to a different location, ending one activity and starting another, or a change in

the people you are interacting with. (Kahneman et al., 2004, p. 1777)

Participants were then encouraged to draw on these diary notes to describe each episode by

answering structured questions about negative work events encountered, their levels of

positive and negative affect, work engagement, and mindfulness. Unless otherwise indicated,


items were answered on 5-point rating scales ranging from 1 (= does not apply at all) to 5 (=

fully applies). All items were in German. Cronbach’s alphas are depicted in Table 1.

Cronbach’s alphas were calculated individually for each day, and then the respective two

reliabilities were averaged. Participants reported a mean of 8.4 episodes on the first day of the

survey, and 7.2 episodes on the second day.

Mindfulness. Mindfulness was assessed with the five-item state measure of the

Mindfulness Attention and Awareness Scale (MAAS; Brown & Ryan, 2003). Sample items

are “I rush through activities without being really attentive to them,” and “I find myself

preoccupied with the future or the past.” Answers were recoded such that higher scores

reflected greater levels of mindfulness.

Work engagement. Work engagement were assessed with the short version of the

Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-9; Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, 2006). It consists

of nine items, for example “My job inspires me”, and “I feel happy when I am working

intensely”.

Positive and negative affect. A list of 11 positive and negative affect adjectives

(Gabriel, Diefendorff, & Erickson, 2011) was used to assess the extent to which participants

had experienced positive and negative affect. The adjectives assessing positive affect were

calm, excited, happy, proud, and relaxed. The negative affect adjectives were angry,

frustrated, helpless, anxious, irritated and sad. The 11 adjectives refer to both low and high

activation emotions, and are therefore considered to be more reflective of hedonic tone

(positive vs. negative) than other affect measures commonly used in the extant published

literature (Gabriel et al., 2011).

Negative work events. A negative work event scale was developed by drawing on

studies of Bledow and colleagues (2011) and Bono, Glomb, Shen, Kim, and Koch (2013). It

consists of seven items, for example “I made a mistake” and “I received information that

negatively affected my work schedule, duties, or pay”. Participants rated the occurrence of

these events. Following Bledow and colleagues (2011), answers were scored as 1 if

participants indicated that they had encountered the event, and as 0 if they did not. In

addition, participants were given the opportunity to mention additional negative events they

had experienced in an open-ended question. Each additional event listed was scored with 1. A

composite measure reflecting the number of negative events encountered was developed.

Data Analysis

For simplicity, episodic data was aggregated to the day level. Accordingly, data on


Table 1

Cronbach’s α, Means, Standard Deviations, and Zero-Order Correlations Between Study Variables

Variable Cronbach’s α M SD 1 2 3 4 5

Day levela

1. Mindfulness 0.79 4.60 .45 −

2. Work engagement 0.94 2.79 .75 .404** −

3. Positive affect 0.74 3.02 .70 .323** .742** −

4. Negative affect 0.71 1.24 .25 -.458** -.209* -.274** −

5. Negative affective events − 1.20 .61 -.011** -.189* -.166** .244** −

Note. Cronbach’s α was calculated individually for each day, and then the respective two reliabilities were averaged.

a N = 37-113.

*p < .05 (two-tailed). **p < .01 (two-tailed).


two rather than three levels were available: on the day level and on the person level, with the

day level data being nested within the person level data. Given the hierarchical structure of

the data, hypotheses were tested with multilevel modelling. All models were random intercept,

fixed slope models. For data analysis, IBM SPSS Statistics 21.0 software was used. Predictor

variables at the day level were grand-mean-centered.

Results

Means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations between the study variables

are displayed in Table 1. Multilevel analysis investigating a direct relationship between

mindfulness and work engagement revealed that, compared to the null model, which included

the intercept only, a model including mindfulness as a predictor of work engagement showed

a significantly smaller likelihood ratio (difference of -2*log = 17.86, df = 1, p < .001).

Mindfulness significantly predicted work engagement (β = 0.64; SE = 0.14, t = 4.43 p < .001).

Hypothesis 1 was thus fully supported.

To test Hypothesis 2, Baron and Kenny's (1986) analytical approach was utilized to

examine an indirect effect of mindfulness on work engagement through positive affect. In

order to confirm mediation, four steps must be followed. The first two steps are to confirm

that the independent variable (mindfulness) is significantly related to both the dependent

variable (work engagement) and the mediating variable (positive affect). The third step is to

demonstrate the significance of the relationship between the mediating variable and the

dependent variable, controlling for the independent variable. The final step is to confirm that

the strength of the relationship between the independent variable and the dependent variable

is significantly reduced in the presence of the mediating variable. As a measure for the

indirect effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable, a Sobel z test has to be

conducted. For testing mediation with multilevel modelling, different nested models were

compared. Results are depicted Table 2. The relationship investigated in step 1 was already

successfully demonstrated by testing hypothesis 1. In step 2 of the mediation analysis process,

mindfulness was a significant predictor of positive affect. In Step 3, positive affect, controlled

for mindfulness, was found to significantly predict work engagement. In the final step,

multilevel analysis revealed that, controlling for positive affect, mindfulness was still a

significant predictor of work engagement. However, the effect was meaningfully reduced.

The Sobel z test provided support for partial mediation (z = 3.80, p < .001). Hypothesis 2 was

thus partially supported.

To test Hypotheses 3a a number of nested models were compared. Results are


Table 2

Multi-level Estimates of the Mediating Effect of Positive Affect on the Relationship between Mindfulness and Work Engagement

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3/4

Variable Estimate SE t Estimate SE t Estimate SE t

Mindfulness 0.635 0.144 4.425a** 0.579 0.142 4.089** 0.276 0.114 2.420*

Positive affect 0.671 0.072 9.379b**

Note. N = 79 participants, and N = 116 data points. Step 1: Mindfulness as predictor of work engagement; Step 2: Mindfulness as predictor of

positive affect; Step 3/4: Mediation model with mindfulness as predictor of work engagement in the presence of positive affect.

* p < .05 (two-tailed). ** p < .001 (two-tailed).

a Consistent with analysis testing hypothesis 1.

b Partial mediation effect.


shown in Table 3a. In Model 1, negative affect and mindfulness were entered as predictor

variables. Compared to the null model, Model 1 showed a significant improvement in model

fit (difference of -2*log = 18.62, df = 2, p < .001). In Model 2, the interaction term between

negative affect and mindfulness was added. Model fit further increased (difference of -2*log

= 3.88, df = 1, p < .05) and the interaction term was significant. In contrast to Hypothesis 3a,

negative affect showed a positive relationship with daily work engagement levels for

employees with low levels of daily mindfulness. For employees with high levels of daily

mindfulness, negative affect was negatively related with daily work engagement levels.

Figure 2 displays this interaction pattern. Hypotheses 3a was thus not supported.

To test Hypotheses 3b, the same hierarchical procedure was applied as for testing

hypotheses 3a. Results are depicted in Table 3b. In Model 1, negative affective events and

mindfulness were entered as predictor variables. Compared to the null model, Model 1

showed a significantly smaller likelihood ratio (difference of -2*log = 82.94, df = 2, p < .001).

Mindfulness was the only significant predictor in this model. In Model 2, the interaction term

between the two predictor variables was entered. The likelihood ratio was not significantly

reduced, nor was the interaction term significant. Hypotheses 3b was thus not supported.

Discussion

The present study examined the relationship between daily levels of mindfulness and

work engagement. Specifically, the role of affect regulative processes for the relationship

between the two constructs was explored. Results partially confirmed the hypotheses.

Mindfulness and work engagement were found to be positively related (Hypothesis 1), and, as

predicted, this relationship was (partially) mediated by positive affect (Hypothesis 2). These

results expand previous research on the beneficial effects of mindfulness in the work context

(e.g., Hülsheger, et al., 2013; Reb et al., 2014; Hülsheger et al., 2014), and are in line with

earlier studies that examined the relationship of mindfulness with positive affect (e.g.,

Fredrickson et al., 2008; Giluk, 2009, 2010). Furthermore, they confirm and extend findings

from initial research on the role of attention and awareness for work engagement (Leroy et al.,

2013), that showed that mindfulness is positively related to work engagement and that this

relationship is mediated by authentic functioning. The present study further contributes to the

mindfulness-engagement literature, as it focused on daily levels of work engagement and

mindfulness. By doing so, it applied a dynamic view on employees’ engagement at work and

investigated micro-mechanisms through which mindfulness transmits its beneficial effects.

In contrast to what was stated in Hypothesis 3a, the negative affect-engagement


Table 3

a)

Multi-level estimates of the Moderating Effect of Mindfulness on the Relationship between Negative Affect and

Work Engagement

Model 1 Model 2

Variable Estimate SE t Estimate SE t

Intercept 2.755 0.076 62.387

2.706 0.007 34.997

Negative affect -0.225 0.153 -0.876

-0.265 0.254 -1.040

Mindfulness 0.586 0.256 3.831**

0.718 0.163 4.401**

Negative affect Mindfulness

-1.049 0.522 -2.010*

-2*LL 196.907

193.025

diff -2*LL (df) 18.619 (2)**

3.882 (1)*

Note. LL = log likelihood; diff = difference. Model 1 was compared to the null model with the intercept as the

only predictor (γ = 2.742; SE = 0.083; t = 32.848; -2*LL = 215.526).

N = 79 participants, and N = 116 data points.

p < .05 (two-tailed). **p < .001 (two-tailed).


b)

Multi-level estimates of the Moderating Effect of Mindfulness on the Relationship between Negative Affect

Events and Work Engagement.

Model 1 Model 2

Variable Estimate SE t Estimate SE t

Intercept 2.706 0.083 32.790 2.708 0.082 32.869

Negative affective events -0.176 0.098 -1,809 -0.171 0.100 -1.711

Mindfulness 0.683 0.154 4.152** 0.643 0.154 4.179**

Negative affective events

Mindfulness -0.092 0.265 -0.348

-2*LL 132.589

132.473

diff -2*LL (df) 82.937 (2)**

0.116 (1)

Note. LL = log likelihood; diff = difference. Model 1 was compared to the null model with the intercept as the

only predictor (γ = 2.742; SE = 0.083; t = 32.848; -2*LL = 215.526).

N = 79 participants, and N = 116 data points.

p < .05 (two-tailed). **p < .001 (two-tailed).


Figure 2. Interaction effect of mindfulness and negative affect on work engagement.

relationship was not more negative for individuals low in daily mindfulness. Quite the

contrary, analyses showed a strong negative relationship between the experience of negative

affect and daily work engagement for individuals high in daily mindfulness. For individuals

low in daily mindfulness the relationship was reversed; negative affect was positively related

with individuals’ daily work engagement levels. This is surprising, given that Bledow and

colleagues (2011) found negative affect to be less detrimental for individuals that were better

able to regulate their affective experiences (i.e., individuals high in positive affectivity). As

reviewed above, mindfulness has repeatedly been associated with enhanced affect regulation

(e.g., Baer et al., 2004, 2006; Feldman et al., 2007; Roemer et al., 2009). Accordingly, similar

findings to those made by Bledow and colleagues (2011) were expected. Instead, individuals

low in mindfulness, that is, individuals inferior in affect regulation, were even found to be

more engaged at work under conditions of high negative affect, compared to a) conditions of

low negative affect, and b) more mindful individuals. Conversely, this seems to imply that

being mindful may be detrimental for employees’ engagement at work under conditions of

high negative affect. There are different explanations that may account for these findings:

First, the present study focused on natural variations of mindfulness. Participants were rather

inexperienced in mindfulness meditation or any other relaxation technique (64.5 % of the

sample were without any mediation experience, 13% actively mediated). So, possibly

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5

Low Negative affect High Negative affect

Work

en

gagem

ent

Low Mindfulness

High Mindfulness


participants were mindful to the extent that they were more aware and attentive to their

negative emotions, but overwhelmed by their experience at the same time. Hence,

mindfulness may be associated with some discomfort, thereby hindering work engagement.

However, in contradiction with this explanation, previous research has found naturally

occurring mindfulness to have beneficial effects on various work-related outcomes, especially

for individuals in emotionally demanding occupations (e.g., Goodman & Schorling, 2012;

Hülsheger et al., 2013). A second explanation might be as follows: One might assume that

mindful individuals down-regulate negative affect very early, even before being aware of it. If

they experience negative affect consciously, however, they initially may have some trouble

coping with it, or mindfully remain in this (disengaged) state for some time before shifting to

positive affect. Individuals low in mindfulness, on the contrary, appear to rely on negative

affect to be engaged at work. That is, they react with high effort investment to negative affect,

resulting in increased work engagement. Negative affect serves as a signal that the rate of goal

progress is insufficiently and that enhanced effort investment is required (Carver & Scheier,

1990). Apparently, individuals low in mindfulness are not aware of that without negative

affect indicating it. In line with this, supplementary analyses found mindfulness to be

negatively related with negative affect in the present sample (β = -.23, SE = .05, p < .001). All

in all, these inconsistent findings invite a reasonable belief that the relationships between

mindfulness, negative affect and work engagement are more complex than previously

expected.

The last hypothesis was also not supported. Contrary to what was predicted in

Hypothesis 3b, daily mindfulness was not found to have a moderating effect on the

relationship between negative affective events and daily work engagement levels. One reason

why the interaction between negative affective events and mindfulness was insignificant may

be the fact that participants encountered negative events at work only infrequently in the

present sample (M = 1.20).

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

The present study has a number of limitations that suggest directions for future

research. First, the proposed hypotheses imply some causal ordering between study variables,

such as mindfulness precedes positive affect, which, in turn, precedes work engagement.

Hypotheses were formulated based on earlier findings that suggested these directions of

effect. For example, research has shown that mindfulness-based interventions are effective in

enhancing individuals’ engagement at work (Leroy et al., 2013) and improving affect (Jain et


al., 2007). However, given the observational- and cross-sectional nature of the data, no

conclusions about causality can be drawn in the present study. Directions of effect may also

be reversed or even reciprocal. For example, Fredrickson and colleagues (2008) found a

mindfulness-related mediation practice to induce increments in daily experiences of positive

emotions, which, in turn, built a wide range of personal resources including increased

mindfulness. Similarly, Sonnentag, Mojza, Binnewies, and Scholl's (2008) findings that

employees who are highly engaged at work during the week report more positive affect and

less negative affect at the end of the work week, suggest that the causal ordering may also be

different. Future studies should solve this issue of causal inference by using longitudinal or

experimental studies.

A second limitation of the study is that all constructs were assessed exclusively with

self-report measures, introducing the possibility of common-method bias (Podsakoff,

MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). However, given that all constructs assessed highly

subjective experiences (i.e., variables of cognitive and affective nature), it appeared

inappropriate to use more objective measures. Employees were most suited for evaluating

whether they felt inspired by their job, had difficulties to stay focused on the present moment,

or experienced work events negatively. Furthermore, data were collected anonymously and

participants were assured of confidentiality, which are procedures considered to reduce

method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Nonetheless, future studies may consider using more

objective, multi-source measures such as supervisor ratings of employees’ engagement at

work, or implicit or behavioral measures in order to assess changes in affect (Payne, Cheng,

Govorun, & Stewart, 2005 as cited in Fredrickson et al., 2008).

There are some differences of opinion between mindfulness researchers on how to best

conceptualize and measure mindfulness. Whereas some argue that mindfulness is a

multidimensional construct (Baer et al., 2006; Bishop et al., 2004; Grossman & Van Dam,

2011; Grossman, 2010), others considered it unidimensional in nature (Brown et al., 2007;

Brown & Ryan, 2003; see also Hülsheger et al. 2014). Accordingly, depending on one’s view,

one might consider it a limitation of the present study that mindfulness was assessed with the

state version of Brown and Ryan’s (2003) MAAS. The MAAS is a well-established

unidimensional mindfulness scale, which assesses individuals’ capability to be aware of and

attend to the current moment (Brown & Ryan, 2003). Future research may examine other

conceptualizations of mindfulness to investigate its role for work engagement in general, and

the relevance of certain aspects of mindfulness in particular.

Finally, hypotheses were tested using aggregated data only. By doing so, loads of


information available at the episodic level was neglected. On the other hand, using the DRM

for data collection and aggregating the data to the day level enabled a more accurate

assessment of participants’ activities and experiences than typical for diary- and experience

sampling methods (Kahneman et al., 2004). Nonetheless, future studies should use designs

and analytical techniques that enable investigating ideas such as that mindfulness is only

initially negatively related to work engagement under conditions of high negative affect. That

is, that the relationship will be reversed in the further course of time.

The present study focused on the role of affect regulative processes for the relationship

between mindfulness and work engagement. Affect regulation, however, is only one of

multiple potential mechanisms of action underlying the relationship between mindfulness and

work engagement (Bishop et al., 2004; Glomb et al., 2011; Shapiro et al., 2006). Future

research may explore other proximal processes through which mindfulness affects the extent

to which workers are energetic, enthusiastic and immersed in their jobs. For example,

Hülsheger and colleagues (2014) recently showed that employees experiencing greater

mindfulness during work are better able to psychologically detach from work during non-

work time. Psychological detachment, on the other hand, has repeatedly been found to be of

major importance for employees’ engagement at work (e.g., Sonnentag, Binnewies, & Mojza,

2010; Sonnentag et al., 2008). Furthermore, it may be interesting to examine the effects of

mindfulness on the three dimensions of work engagement separately in future research.

Finally, the fact that the present study found mindful individuals to be less engaged than

individuals low in mindfulness under conditions of high negative affect, should motivate

research on potential negative effects of mindfulness. To date, this has been a rather neglected

area in mindfulness research.

Pracitcal Implications

Work engagement is an important indicator of employee well-being and enhances the

occurrence of behaviors known to promote efficient functioning of the organization. Hence,

answering the question of how to foster employees’ engagement at work is essential for both

the individual and the organization (Salanova, Schaufeli, Xanthopoulou, & Bakker, 2010).

Whereas there already exist workplace interventions focusing on increasing work engagement

by developing personal and job resources (Cifre, Salanova, & Rodríguez-Sánchez, 2011;

Luthans, Avey, Avolio, Norman, & Combs, 2006), the present study supports the idea that

cultivating mindfulness may be another option to foster employees’ engagement.

Mindfulness-based interventions in the workplace have already been proven effective in


reducing perceived stress and sleep quality (Wolever et al., 2012). In addition, mindfulness

self-training has been successfully tested to reduce employees’ emotional exhaustion and to

increase their job satisfaction (Hülsheger et al., 2013). Furthermore, mindfulness meditation

practice has been found to build personal resources (Fredrickson et al., 2008). Thus, it is

possible to use both workplace and individual intervention programs to a) enhance

mindfulness in employees, and b) to obtain benefits that go even beyond enhanced

engagement. Hence, one might consider mindfulness-based interventions superior to others

that focus on enhancing employees’ engagement at work by developing personal- and job

resources.


References

Alberts, H. J. E. M., Schneider, F., & Martijn, C. (2012). Dealing efficiently with emotions:

Acceptance-based coping with negative emotions requires fewer resources than

suppression. Cognition & Emotion, 26(5), 863–870.

doi:10.1080/02699931.2011.625402

Allen, T. D., & Kiburz, K. M. (2012). Trait mindfulness and work–family balance among

working parents: The mediating effects of vitality and sleep quality. Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 80(2), 372–379.

Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., & Allen, K. B. (2004). Assessment of mindfulness by self-report:

The Kentucky inventory of mindfulness skills. Assessment, 11(3), 191–206.

doi:10.1177/1073191104268029

Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Hopkins, J., Krietemeyer, J., & Toney, L. (2006). Using self-report

assessment methods to explore facets of mindfulness. assessment, 13(1), 27–45.

doi:10.1177/1073191105283504

Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Lykins, E., Button, D., Krietemeyer, J., Sauer, S., … Williams, J.

M. G. (2008). Construct validity of the five facet mindfulness questionnaire in

meditating and nonmeditating samples. Assessment, 15(3), 329–342.

doi:10.1177/1073191107313003

Bakker, A. B., & Bal, M. P. (2010). Weekly work engagement and performance: A study

among starting teachers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,

83(1), 189–206. doi:10.1348/096317909X402596

Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2008). Towards a model of work engagement. Career

Development International, 13(3), 209–223. doi:10.1108/13620430810870476


Bakker, A. B., Hakanen, J. J., Demerouti, E., & Xanthopoulou, D. (2007). Job resources boost

work engagement, particularly when job demands are high. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 99(2), 274–284. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.274

Bakker, A. B., Schaufeli, W. B., Leiter, M. P., & Taris, T. W. (2008). Work engagement: An

emerging concept in occupational health psychology. Work & Stress, 22(3), 187–200.

doi:10.1080/02678370802393649

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social

psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182. doi:10.1037/0022-

3514.51.6.1173

Bindl, U. K., & Parker, S. K. (2010). Feeling good and performing well? Psychological

engagement and positive behaviors at work. In S. L. Albrecht (Ed.), Handbook of

employee engagement: Perspectives, issues, research and practice (pp. 385–398).

Edward Elgar Publishing.

Bishop, S. R., Lau, M., Shapiro, S. L., Carlson, L., Anderson, N. D., Carmody, J., … Devins,

G. (2004). Mindfulness: A proposed operational definition. Clinical Psychology:

Science and Practice, 11(3), 230–241. doi:10.1093/clipsy/bph077

Bledow, R., Schmitt, A., Frese, M., & Kühnel, J. (2011). The affective shift model of work

engagement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(6), 1246–1257.

doi:10.1037/a0024532

Bodhi, B. (2011). What does mindfulness really mean? A canonical perspective.

Contemporary Buddhism, 12(1), 19–39. doi:10.1080/14639947.2011.564813

Bono, J. E., Glomb, T. M., Shen, W., Kim, E., & Koch, A. J. (2013). Building positive

resources: Effects of positive events and positive reflection on work stress and health.

Academy of Management Journal, 56(6), 1601–1627. doi:10.5465/amj.2011.0272


Broderick, P. C. (2005). Mindfulness and coping with dysphoric mood: Contrasts with

rumination and distraction. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 29(5), 501–510.

doi:10.1007/s10608-005-3888-0

Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role

in psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(4),

822–848. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.822

Brown, K. W., Ryan, R. M., & Creswell, J. D. (2007). Mindfulness: Theoretical foundations

and evidence for its salutary effects. Psychological Inquiry, 18(4), 211–237.

doi:10.1080/10478400701598298

Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1990). Origins and functions of positive and negative affect:

a control-process view. Psychological Review, 97(1), 19.

Chambers, R., Gullone, E., & Allen, N. B. (2009). Mindful emotion regulation: An integrative

review. Clinical Psychology Review, 29(6), 560–572. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2009.06.005

Chiesa, A., & Serretti, A. (2009). Mindfulness-based stress reduction for stress management

in healthy people: A review and meta-analysis. The Journal of Alternative and

Complementary Medicine, 15(5), 593–600. doi:10.1089/acm.2008.0495

Cifre, E., Salanova, M., & Rodríguez-Sánchez, A. M. (2011). Dancing between theory and

practice: Enhancing work engagement through work stress intervention. Human

Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries, 21(3), 269–286.

doi:10.1002/hfm.20232

Creswell, J. D., Way, B. M., Eisenberger, N. I., & Lieberman, M. D. (2007). Neural correlates

of dispositional mindfulness during affect labeling. Psychosomatic Medicine, 69(6),

560–565. doi:10.1097/PSY.0b013e3180f6171f


Dane, E., & Brummel, B. J. (2013). Examining workplace mindfulness and its relations to job

performance and turnover intention. Human Relations.

doi:10.1177/0018726713487753

Davidson, R. J., Kabat-Zinn, J., Schumacher, J., Rosenkranz, M., Muller, D., Santorelli, S. F.,

… Sheridan, J. F. (2003). Alterations in brain and immune function produced by

mindfulness meditation. Psychosomatic Medicine, 65(4), 564–570.

doi:10.1097/01.PSY.0000077505.67574.E3

Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands-

resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 499–512.

doi:10.1037//0021-9010.86.3.499

Eifert, G. H., & Heffner, M. (2003). The effects of acceptance versus control contexts on

avoidance of panic-related symptoms. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental

Psychiatry, 34(3-4), 293–312. doi:10.1016/j.jbtep.2003.11.001

Evans, D. R., & Segerstrom, S. C. (2011). Why do mindful people worry less? Cognitive

Therapy and Research, 35(6), 505–510. doi:10.1007/s10608-010-9340-0

Feldman, G., Hayes, A., Kumar, S., Greeson, J., & Laurenceau, J.-P. (2007). Mindfulness and

emotion regulation: The development and initial validation of the cognitive and

affective mindfulness scale-revised (CAMS-R). Journal of Psychopathology and

Behavioral Assessment, 29(3), 177–190. doi:10.1007/s10862-006-9035-8

Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review of General Psychology,

2(3), 300.

Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-

and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56(3), 218.

doi:10.1037//0003-066X.56.3.218


Fredrickson, B. L. (2004). The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. Philosophical

Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 359(1449), 1367–1377.

doi:10.1098/rstb.2004.1512

Fredrickson, B. L., Cohn, M. A., Coffey, K. A., Pek, J., & Finkel, S. M. (2008). Open hearts

build lives: Positive emotions, induced through loving-kindness meditation, build

consequential personal resources. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

95(5), 1045–1062. doi:10.1037/a0013262

Fredrickson, B. L., Tugade, M. M., Waugh, C. E., & Larkin, G. R. (2003). What good are

positive emotions in crisis? A prospective study of resilience and emotions following

the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11th, 2001. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 84(2), 365–376. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.2.365

Friese, M., Messner, C., & Schaffner, Y. (2012). Mindfulness meditation counteracts self-

control depletion. Consciousness and Cognition, 21(2), 1016–1022.

doi:10.1016/j.concog.2012.01.008

Gabriel, A. S., Diefendorff, J. M., & Erickson, R. J. (2011). The relations of daily task

accomplishment satisfaction with changes in affect: A multilevel study in nurses.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(5), 1095–1104. doi:10.1037/a0023937

Giluk, T. L. (2009). Mindfulness, Big Five personality, and affect: A meta-analysis.

Personality and Individual Differences, 47(8), 805–811.

doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.06.026

Giluk, T. L. (2010). Mindfulness-based stress reduction: facilitating work outcomes through

experienced affect and high-quality relationships. (Doctoral dissertation). University

of Iowa, Iowa. Retrieved from http://ir.uiowa.edu/etd/674/


Glomb, T. M., Duffy, M. K., Bono, J. E., & Yang, T. (2011). Mindfulness at work. In J.

Martocchio, H. Liao, & A. Joshi (Eds.), Research in Personnel and Human Resources

Management (Vol. 30, pp. 115–157). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

González-Romá, V., Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Lloret, S. (2006). Burnout and work

engagement: Independent factors or opposite poles? Journal of Vocational Behavior,

68(1), 165–174. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2005.01.003

Goodman, M., & Schorling, J. B. (2012). A mindfulness course decreases burnout and

improves well-being among healthcare providers. International Journal of Psychiatry

in Medicine, 43(2), 119–128. doi:10.2190/PM.43.2.b

Grossman, P. (2010). Mindfulness for psychologists: Paying kind attention to the perceptible.

Mindfulness, 1(2), 87–97. doi:10.1007/s12671-010-0012-7

Grossman, P., Niemann, L., Schmidt, S., & Walach, H. (2004). Mindfulness-based stress

reduction and health benefits. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 57(1), 35–43.

doi:10.1016/S0022-3999(03)00573-7

Grossman, P., & Van Dam, N. T. (2011). Mindfulness, by any other name…: Trials and

tribulations of sati in western psychology and science. Contemporary Buddhism,

12(1), 219–239. doi:10.1080/14639947.2011.564841

Hakanen, J. J., Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). Burnout and work engagement

among teachers. Journal of School Psychology, 43(6), 495–513.

doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2005.11.001

Hariri, A. R., Bookheimer, S. Y., & Mazziotta, J. C. (2000). Modulating emotional responses:

Effects of a neocortical network on the limbic system. Neuroreport, 11(1), 43–48.

Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between

employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-


analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 268–279. doi:10.1037//0021-

9010.87.2.268

Hayes, A. M., & Feldman, G. (2004). Clarifying the construct of mindfulness in the context of

emotion regulation and the process of change in therapy. Clinical Psychology: Science

and Practice, 11(3), 255–262. doi:10.1093/clipsy.bph080

Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress.

American Psychologist, 44(3), 513–524. doi:0003-066X/89/$00.75

Hülsheger, U. R., Alberts, H. J. E. M., Feinholdt, A., & Lang, J. W. B. (2013). Benefits of

mindfulness at work: The role of mindfulness in emotion regulation, emotional

exhaustion, and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(2), 310–325.

doi:10.1037/a0031313

Hülsheger, U. R., Lang, J. W. B., Depenbrock, F., Fehrmann, C., Zijlstra, F. R. H., & Alberts,

H. J. E. M. (2014). The power of presence: The role of mindfulness at work for daily

levels and change trajectories of psychological detachment and sleep quality.

Manuscript Submitted for Publication.

Jain, S., Shapiro, S. L., Swanick, S., Roesch, S. C., Mills, P. J., Bell, I., & Schwartz, G. E. R.

(2007). A randomized controlled trial of mindfulness meditation versus relaxation

training: Effects on distress, positive states of mind, rumination, and distraction.

Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 33(1), 11–21. doi:10.1207/s15324796abm3301_2

Kabat-Zinn, J. (1982). An outpatient program in behavioral medicine for chronic pain patients

based on the practice of mindfulness meditation: Theoretical considerations and

preliminary results. General Hospital Psychiatry, 4(1), 33–47. doi:10.1016/0163-

8343(82)90026-3

Kabat-Zinn, J. (1990). Full Catastrophe Living: Using the wisdom of your body and mind to

face stress, pain, and illness. New York NY: Delacorte Press.


Kahneman, D., Krueger, A. B., Schkade, D. A., Schwarz, N., & Stone, A. A. (2004). A survey

method for characterizing daily life experience: The day reconstruction method.

Science, 306(5702), 1776–1780. doi:10.1126/science.1103572

Klatt, M. D., Buckworth, J., & Malarkey, W. B. (2009). Effects of low-dose mindfulness-

based stress reduction (MBSR-LD) on working adults. Health Education & Behavior,

36(3), 601–614. doi:10.1177/1090198108317627

Langelaan, S., Bakker, A. B., van Doornen, L. J. P., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). Burnout and

work engagement: Do individual differences make a difference? Personality and

Individual Differences, 40(3), 521–532. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.07.009

Lau, M. A., Bishop, S. R., Segal, Z. V., Buis, T., Anderson, N. D., Carlson, L., … Devins, G.

(2006). The toronto mindfulness scale: Development and validation. Journal of

Clinical Psychology, 62(12), 1445–1467. doi:10.1002/jclp.20326

Leroy, H., Anseel, F., Dimitrova, N. G., & Sels, L. (2013). Mindfulness, authentic

functioning, and work engagement: A growth modeling approach. Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 82(3), 238–247. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2013.01.012

Levitt, J. T., Brown, T. A., Orsillo, S. M., & Barlow, D. H. (2004). The effects of acceptance

versus suppression of emotion on subjective and psychophysiological response to

carbon dioxide challenge in patients with panic disorder. Behavior Therapy, 35(4),

747–766.

Luthans, F., Avey, J. B., Avolio, B. J., Norman, S. M., & Combs, G. M. (2006).

Psychological capital development: Toward a micro-intervention. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 27(3), 387–393. doi:10.1002/job.373

Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and

Organizational Psychology, 1(1), 3–30.


Marzuq, N., & Drach-Zahavy, A. (2012). Recovery during a short period of respite: The

interactive roles of mindfulness and respite experiences. Work and Stress, 26(2), 175–

194. doi: 10.1080/02678373.2012.683574

Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of

Psychology, 52(1), 397–422. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397

Meijman, T. F., & Mulder, G. (1998). Psychological aspects of workload. In P. J. D Drenth &

H. Thierry (Eds.), Handbook of work and organizational psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 5–

33). Hove: Psychology Press.

Narayanan, J., Chaturvedi, S., Reb, J., & Srinivas, E. (2011). Examining the role of trait

mindfulness on turnover intentions and job performance: The mediating role of

emotional exhaustion. Working paper, National University of Singapore.

Nyklíček, I., & Kuijpers, K. F. (2008). Effects of mindfulness-based stress reduction

intervention on psychological well-being and quality of life: Is increased mindfulness

indeed the mechanism? Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 35(3), 331–340.

doi:10.1007/s12160-008-9030-2

Ohly, S., Sonnentag, S., Niessen, C., & Zapf, D. (2010). Diary studies in organizational

research: An introduction and some practical recommendations. Journal of Personnel

Psychology, 9(2), 79–93. doi:10.1027/1866-5888/a000009

Ortner, C. N. M., Kilner, S. J., & Zelazo, P. D. (2007). Mindfulness meditation and reduced

emotional interference on a cognitive task. Motivation and Emotion, 31(4), 271–283.

doi:10.1007/s11031-007-9076-7

Ouweneel, E., Blanc, P. M. L., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2012). Don’t leave your heart at home:

Gain cycles of positive emotions, resources, and engagement at work. Career

Development International, 17(6), 537–556. doi:10.1108/13620431211280123


Ouweneel, E., Le Blanc, P. M., Schaufeli, W. B., & van Wijhe, C. I. (2012). Good morning,

good day: A diary study on positive emotions, hope, and work engagement. Human

Relations, 65(9), 1129–1154. doi:10.1177/0018726711429382

Payne, B. K., Cheng, C. M., Govorun, O., & Stewart, B. D. (2005). An inkblot for attitudes:

Affect misattribution as implicit measurement. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 89(3), 277–293. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.89.3.277

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method

biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended

remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. doi:10.1037/0021-

9010.88.5.879

Reb, J., Narayanan, J., & Chaturvedi, S. (2014). Leading mindfully: Two studies on the

influence of supervisor trait mindfulness on employee well-being and performance.

Mindfulness, 5(1), 36–45. doi:10.1007/s12671-012-0144-z

Rich, B. L., Lepine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and

effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), 617–635.

Roemer, L., Lee, J. K., Salters-Pedneault, K., Erisman, S. M., Orsillo, S. M., & Mennin, D. S.

(2009). Mindfulness and emotion regulation difficulties in generalized anxiety

disorder: Preliminary evidence for independent and overlapping contributions.

Behavior Therapy, 40(2), 142–154. doi:10.1016/j.beth.2008.04.001

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2008). From ego depletion to vitality: Theory and findings

concerning the facilitation of energy available to the self. Social and Personality

Psychology Compass, 2(2), 702–717. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00098.x

Salanova, M., Agut, S., & Peiró, J. M. (2005). Linking organizational resources and work

engagement to employee performance and customer loyalty: The mediation of service


climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1217–1227. doi:10.1037/0021-

9010.90.6.1217

Salanova, M., Schaufeli, W. B., Xanthopoulou, D., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). The gain spiral of

resources and work engagement: Sustaining a positive worklife. In A. B. Bakker & M.

P. Leiter (Eds.), Work Engagement: A Handbook of Essential Theory and Research.

(pp. 118–131). New York NY: Psychology Press.

Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship

with burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 25(3), 293–315. doi:10.1002/job.248

Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work

engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and

Psychological Measurement, 66(4), 701–716. doi:10.1177/0013164405282471

Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The

measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic

approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3(1), 71–92.

Schroevers, M. J., & Brandsma, R. (2010). Is learning mindfulness associated with improved

affect after mindfulness-based cognitive therapy? British Journal of Psychology,

101(1), 95–107. doi:10.1348/000712609X424195

Sears, S., & Kraus, S. (2009). I think therefore i om: Cognitive distortions and coping style as

mediators for the effects of mindfulness meditation on anxiety, positive and negative

affect, and hope. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 65(6), 561–573.

doi:10.1002/jclp.20543

Segal, Z. V., Williams, J. M. G., & Teasdale, J. D. (2002). Mindfulness-based cognitive

therapy for depression: a new approach to preventing relapse. New York: Guilford.


Shapiro, S. L., Brown, K. W., & Biegel, G. M. (2007). Teaching self-care to caregivers:

Effects of mindfulness-based stress reduction on the mental health of therapists in

training. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 1(2), 105–115.

doi:10.1037/1931-3918.1.2.105

Shapiro, S. L., Carlson, L. E., Astin, J. A., & Freedman, B. (2006). Mechanisms of

mindfulness. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 62(3), 373–386. doi:10.1002/jclp.20237

Smith, B. W., Shelley, B. M., Dalen, J., Wiggins, K., Tooley, E., & Bernard, J. (2008). A pilot

study comparing the effects of mindfulness-based and cognitive-behavioral stress

reduction. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 14(3), 251–258.

doi:10.1089/acm.2007.0641

Sonnentag, S. (2003). Recovery, work engagement, and proactive behavior: A new look at the

interface between nonwork and work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 518–528.

doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.3.518

Sonnentag, S., Binnewies, C., & Mojza, E. J. (2010). Staying well and engaged when

demands are high: The role of psychological detachment. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 95(5), 965–976. doi:10.1037/a0020032

Sonnentag, S., Dorman, C., & Demerouti, E. (2010). Not all days are created equal: The

concept of state work engagement. In A. B. Bakker & M. P. Leiter (Eds.), Work

engagement: Recent developments in theory and research (pp. 25–38). New York NY:

Psychology Press.

Sonnentag, S., Mojza, E. J., Binnewies, C., & Scholl, A. (2008). Being engaged at work and

detached at home: A week-level study on work engagement, psychological

detachment, and affect. Work & Stress, 22(3), 257–276.

doi:10.1080/02678370802379440


Tipsord, J. M. (2009). The effects of mindfulness training and individual differences in

mindfulness on social perception and empathy. (Doctoral Dissertation) University of

Oregon, Oregon. Retrieved from https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/handle/

1794/10357

Vieten, C., & Astin, J. (2008). Effects of a mindfulness-based intervention during pregnancy

on prenatal stress and mood: Results of a pilot study. Archives of Women’s Mental

Health, 11(1), 67–74. doi:10.1007/s00737-008-0214-3

Walach, H., Buchheld, N., Buttenmüller, V., Kleinknecht, N., & Schmidt, S. (2006).

Measuring mindfulness—the Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory (FMI). Personality and

Individual Differences, 40(8), 1543–1555. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.11.025

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief

measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063.

Weigl, M., Hornung, S., Parker, S. K., Petru, R., Glaser, J., & Angerer, P. (2010). Work

engagement accumulation of task, social, personal resources: A three-wave structural

equation model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77(1), 140–153.

doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2010.03.002

Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of

the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. Research in

Organizational Behavior: An Annual Series of Analytical Essays and Critical

Reviews, 18, 1–74.

Wolever, R. Q., Bobinet, K. J., McCabe, K., Mackenzie, E. R., Fekete, E., Kusnick, C. A., &

Baime, M. (2012). Effective and viable mind-body stress reduction in the workplace:

A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 17(2),

246–258. doi: 10.1037/a0027278


Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2007). The role of

personal resources in the job demands-resources model. International Journal of

Stress Management, 14(2), 121–141. doi:10.1037/1072-5245.14.2.121

Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2009). Work

engagement and financial returns: A diary study on the role of job and personal

resources. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82(1), 183–200.

doi:10.1348/096317908X285633

Documents

Running head: MINDFULLY AWARE AND ENGAGED AT WORK 1 · Running head: MINDFULLY AWARE AND ENGAGED AT WORK 5 (Reb et al., 2014), emotion regulation (Hülsheger et al., 2013), job performance